Libertarianism

'Libertarian Paranoia' Is the Newest Fad in Politics

Never before have so many been so intimidated by so few, with so little political power.

|

Look out: The libertarians are coming! The libertarians are coming! Never before have so many been so intimidated by so few, with so little political power.

Salon.com offers near-daily warnings about the libertarian "threat":

"Beware of Libertarians Bearing Gifts," the Center for American Progress admonishes: "a bipartisan move against the NSA could kill the New Deal."

Anti-libertarian paranoia plagues our elected officials too: "the anarchists have taken over," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wails. "This strain of libertarianism … is a very dangerous thought," New Jersey Governor Chris Christie warned last summer in the wake of Edward Snowden's exposure of National Security Agency spying: "I want [these critics] to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans" (Pro tip: don't take the George Washington Bridge).

"I'm very nervous about the direction this is moving in," the governor added.

Recently, three prestigious academics have argued that you should be especially nervous about "Paranoid Libertarians." Distinguished historian Sean Wilentz coined the term last month in a New Republic hit piece on Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald. These NSA critics "despise the liberal state and want to wound it," he charged.

Picking up Wilentz's term, Harvard law professor and former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein offered tips on "How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian." And, writing at Slate, the University of Chicago's Eric Posner warned that libertarian paranoia kills: "in fact, the fear of government is far more serious than the fear of flying."

The three combined for nearly 10,000 words on "Paranoid Libertarians" without ever producing evidence that "libertarian paranoia" is a threat to much of anything besides overweening government.

Wilentz's article is a comically inept exercise in guilt by association. Liberals shouldn't make common cause with Snowden and Greenwald, says Wilentz, because, among other things, Snowden gave $500 to the Ron Paul campaign and made disparaging comments about Social Security in an Internet chat room in 2009. Greenwald has (gasp!) written for, and said nice things about, my employer, the Cato Institute.

Sunstein offers a more reasonable critique, distinguishing between "Paranoid Libertarians" and libertarians in general, who are "speaking on behalf of an important strand in America's political culture." He's worried about the movement's fringe, he says, those who "have a wildly exaggerated sense of risks to liberty … adopt a presumption of bad faith on the part of government … [and] love slippery-slope arguments."

Their overwrought attitude toward the risks of government abuse, Sunstein and Posner suggest, might lead them to resist sensible policies making Americans safer.

If, as Posner asserts, "fear of government is far more serious than fear of flying," it must be serious indeed. Increased driving after Sept. 11, 2001, may have led to more than 1,500 additional road deaths in the year after the attacks. How many people did post-9/11 fear of government kill?

Both professors are heavy on concerns and light on specifics. Sunstein points to a nine-year-old paper by his colleague Adrian Vermuele on the danger of "Libertarian Panics." That paper offers two historical examples of the terrible consequences that can ensue when people let themselves get carried away by distrust of government. They are, and I'm not making this up: (1) the American Revolution; and (2) political resistance to the PATRIOT Act during the mid-2000s.

The American Revolution seems to have worked out ok, and given recent revelations, if anything, civil libertarians weren't paranoid enough about the PATRIOT Act circa 2005. If this is the best they can come up with, we needn't panic about "libertarian panics."

This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner

NEXT: Academic Publishers Retract More Than 120 Papers After Learning They Were "Computer-Generated Nonsense"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m so glad I am a libertarian. Really, I got into it for the amazing feeling of CONTROL I have over my fellow Americans. We have infiltrated government at all levels, businesses and corporations, and most of civil society. Our agenda is powerful, and we will soon bring America to it’s knees! It’s such a rush!!

    1. Once we take over, we’re going to force liberty down everyone’s throats at bayonet point, right?

      1. Unfortunately Brett, there’s a catch.

        1. We’re using Warty Hugeman’s Doomcock instead?

          1. I laughed. Probably more than I should have…

      2. The funny thing is, that there are people that call themselves libertarians that actually believe this. What they are actually are neo-conservatives.

      3. Thanks for the article. Libertarian fans are evenly distributed among all parties/independents in the USA.

        For more on the 8 million participant world Libertarian movement, see http://www.libertarianinternational.org the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization.

    2. It’s true. We’re responsible for making people desire things that are unapproved by progressives. We’re responsible for making them concerned with their own self-interest (greed!). We’re responsible for making people not sell products below market value. We’re responsible for making price controls cause shortages (saboteurs! hoarders!).
      We’re responsible for the fact that resorces are finite. We’re responsible for the entire filed of economics (it’s all a secret plot by libertarians to discredit communism!).
      Indeed, we are responsible for everything that causes progressives to not get their way.

      1. We’re responsible for making them concerned with their own self-interest (greed!)

        This is something that has always perplexed me. If you don’t vote the “right” way, you get accused of voting against your own self-interest. But when actual issues come up and a bunch of people get boned (ACA, etc.), you get told to shut the fuck up and your “self-interest” doesn’t matter. It’s the “needs of the many” that you should be concerned about.

        Trying to figure out progtard doublethink is really a huge waste of time, and yet I can’t help but at least *try* to understand things from their perspective. They have already deemed anything that doesn’t jive with what their current mantra is as divisive, selfish, and needing to be destroyed, and yet they call themselves “tolerant” and “logical.”

        1. in reading your last sentence, seems to me that you do, in fact, completely understand their perspective.

          1. Touche.

        2. “and yet I can’t help but at least *try* to understand things from their perspective.”

          It will only make your brain hurt.

          1. Trying for too long is potentially fatal.

        3. I sometimes post on my Facebook “some animals are more equal than others”. My liberal friends love this and all hit that “Like” button. They have no idea that I’m referring to them thinking rich people are not as equal as the poor and downtrodden.

        4. If you vote for dems or repubs, you ARE voting against your own self-interest. That is a demonstrable fact. For you righties, vote libertarian; for liberals such as myself, I’ll be voting green party.

        5. Right. They think people should vote themselves benefits from the public treasury, but then complain that it’s greedy to want to keep what you make yourself.

          Somehow self-reliance is greed, but being a free rider is rational self-interest.

    3. You’re not supposed to talk about that in public forums, Edge.

    4. Teach me the secret handshake…

    5. Thanks for the article. It might help if some of these critics were aware of what Libertarians are actually doing!

      For more on the 8 million participant world Libertarian movement, see http://www.libertarianinternational.org the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization.

  2. I’m in it for the women, mostly. Well, that and the instant wealth it brought me (P.S. my monthly check is a couple of days late, Mr Koch). That my friends respond to me with respectful fear and an inherent presumption of my brilliant nefariousness is only the cherry on top of the whole liberty-loving sundae.

    1. *applause*

      I wish I had written this.

      /tinge of jealousy

    2. Oh, indeed. The Bay Area babes just flock to libertarians like me….

      1. Ah, the tender loins of the Tenderloin

      2. Bay area libertarian! There’s two of us now!

        1. Sevo and C. Anacreon are also around here. We should have a meet-up some day.

          1. me too ๐Ÿ™‚

            1. Silicon Valley in the house.

              1. +1 East Bay (East of the Lonely Mountain, even)

        2. Two more- me and the missus!

  3. Their overwrought attitude toward the risks of government abuse, Sunstein and Posner suggest, might lead them to resist sensible policies making Americans safer.

    “Now, now, why won’t these party-poopers let us lobotomize people in peace so they can live safer lives? Their overwrought attitude is impeding our noble task of making everybody safer!”

    1. +3 generations of idiots

      Fuck off, Posner and Sunstein.

    2. Their overwrought attitude toward the risks of government abuse,

      Only wealthy people living in very particular bubbles could believe the risk of government abuse is negligible.

      sensible policies making Americans safer

      Its like they can’t even comprehend that government is the biggest risk to most people’s safety and well-being, and the best way to make Americans safer is to protect them from the government itself.

      IOW, standard-issue courtier/cronies.

  4. “Don’t ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally.”

    The fuck? EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A LIBERTARIAN.

    1. This sort of stupidity – thinking that libertarians are “co-opting” concepts that we’ve actually supported for decades – is in fact beginning to overtake bare-bones ideology as the characteristic of my liberal friends that most irritates me.

      Latest example: FB associate posts a furious diatribe against an LP tweet that claims they’ve been “for gay marriage since 1971”. Searches for LP platform docs. Cannot find the phrase “gay marriage” Does find text about no government interference in any private consensual acts, calls it “minimal support”. Accuses libertarians generally of being “bandwagon jumpers” to an issue where most libertarians are way more liberal than the leaders of the Democratic Party.

      I. Shit. You. Not. These people are retarded.

      1. y supported for decades

        Co-opt? CO-OPT? We invented it.

        1. We co-opted their co-opting.

      2. The Facebook associate is right. “Marriage equality” didn’t come up in LP platform discussion until the late 1990s, and then it was voted down! I was there.

        1. The doctrinaire libertarian position is that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

          Gay marriage equalizes treatment of gays and straights who are married, but it doesn’t equalize treatment of married and unmarried people.

        2. Actually, gay marriage started as a conservative position. Marriage is good, so gay marriage should be good as well.

          The gay culture at the time was totally anti this message.

          Only later did the sides each switch.

          (I should note gay marriage proponents of conservative bent were not numerous and got little traction, but they started the debate.)

          Ann Althouse has good posts on this subject.

  5. The Secret Libertarianism of Uber and Airbnb

    Libertarianism: A secret and mystical force that mutually benefits people by giving them what they want. A terrifying power, indeed.

    1. But imagine the deadly chaos if people are allowed to rent cars and rooms without government regulation!!!

      1. CHIRRUN!!

  6. Look out: The libertarians are coming!

    All 22 of us!

    1. Hey don’t discount the AnCaps we got your back…. all 2 of us

      1. And the 6 or 7 of us minarchists too?

  7. As a libertarian, I can feel the power of darkness flow through me each and every day, as I work tirelessly to bring terrifying freedom to all who dare cross my path.

    1. Well, freedom is terrifying. I’m reminded of a passage in Breakfast of Champions in which the main character opend the door to his parakeet’s cage. The bird flies out of the cage and the window only to return to the cage. Freedom is terrifying.

      1. *Spoiler alert*

        He loved Big Brother.

      2. “Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward towards the light; but the laden traveler may never reach the end of it.”

        ? Ursula K. Le Guin, The Tombs of Atuan

        1. I had forgotten about that book. I liked A Wizard of Earth Sea better, I think, but that one was good. Maybe I will have to re-read it. I just went to Wikipedia article about her, which claims ‘although she does not call herself an anarchist since she does not live the lifestyle, she does feel that, “Democracy is good but it isn’t the only way to achieve justice and a fair share.”‘

    2. As a libertarian, […]

      So you’re the other one.

    3. “Use your liberty loving feelings, let the freedom flow through you!” – Emprorer Palpatine, libertarian.

      Nope, doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

  8. a presumption of bad faith on the part of government

    It doesn’t seem to me like most libertarians presume bad faith. They predict bad outcomes, based on past results.

    1. Why won’t strangers give me copies of their housekeys? What, are they paranoid? Do they just assume I’m going to come in when they’re not home, rifle through their belongings, and install surveillance equipment? Do they just presume bad faith on the part of complete strangers??

    2. Now, now Lynchpin. Everyone knows that bad outcomes can only come from bad intentions. And if intentions are good only good outcomes will follow.

      1. ^^^THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE.^^^

  9. the Center for American Progress admonishes: “a bipartisan move against the NSA could kill the New Deal.

    If only.

    1. Why is it still the New Deal? It’s going on 80 years old now.

      1. “Progressives” spend much of their energy defending obsolete policies invented by their deluded ancestors.

        1. Funny how similar to conservatives they are isnt it?

          The real reason they hate us is because we hold a mirror up to their face.

          1. “we hold a mirror up to their face.”

            That’s the part that gets to them the most. They don’t like to confront the cognitive dissonance that ensues.

      2. It’s still New Mexico. Everything’s relative, and this one succeeded the Square Deal and Fair Deal.

    2. If we’d know it was that easy, it would have been done long ago.

  10. If you feel that everything must be controlled, and for everything there must be rules backed with government violence, then yes libertarians are indeed a threat, because libertarians support liberty.

    1. Well, trying to stop the government from controlling its citizens is a controlling behavior itself, so obviously libertarians hate children. Of course.

  11. They’re just trying to lull us into a false sense of dominance.

    Sunstein: You are Libertarian?
    Generic Libertarian Overlord: Yes.
    Sunstein: Ohhh, you must have very big penis!
    Generic Libertarian Overlord: Excuse me, I was just asking you what your up to with these fascist laws.
    Sunstein: Nothing, we are very simple people with very small penis. Mr. Posner’s penis is especially small!
    Posner: So small.
    Sunstein: We cannot achieve so much with such small penis, but you Libertarians wow, penis so big, so big penis!
    Generic Libertarian Overlord: Well aah I guess it is pretty good size.

    Don’t fall for it.

    1. Libertarians have big p’s? I should date more libertarians.

  12. Or as Tony likes to put it, libertarians want to impose liberty on society.

    In a society free from responsibility, everyone must seek permission and orders from people who initiate force.

    Libertarians would force those who initiate force to stop initiating force, allowing people to conduct their affairs without needing to ask permission and obey orders at every turn.

    Thus libertarians are tyrants.

    1. Re: sarcasmic,

      Or as Tony likes to put it, libertarians want to impose liberty on society.

      Well, to be fair to Tony, he doesn’t make that argument.

      No, he makes an even worse one: that if we succeed with allowing free people to roam the fields unmolested, it would only give rich oligarchs much more power to oppress the little guy with their… uh, I guess 46″ flat screen TVs, air conditioners or 4×4 trucks.

      1. For certain people, the fact that only some possess 46″ TVs, air conditioners, and 4x4s is, in itself, and act of oppression.

        1. I love that argument that that dude on The Independents who is not Matt or Kennedy made regarding inequality.

          If everyone’s wealth doubled (wealth as in everything you own, not just your money) then inequality would double. But everyone would now have twice as much stuff as they did before. How is that bad?

          That argument reduces social justice warriors into sputtering fools.

          1. I like it. I’ve used a version of it, but that’s a better one.

          2. Ooooh, I’m stealing that.

          3. “That argument reduces social justice warriors into sputtering fools.”

            Classic example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

            1. No wonder the left so hates that woman to this day. She exposed the truth behind their lies.

      2. No, I think he does make that argument. Who are we to stop the majority from deciding what “our” regulations will be, or what is required of every member of society?

        1. This. Certain people worship at the altar of democracy, and for things they deem to be within the “public” sphere, individual preferences matter not.

      3. I’ve seen him use the exact words “impose liberty on society.”

        1. And I mean it.

          Instead of giving people who share the country an equal and free democratic choice on whether they want, say, pollution regulated, you want to tell them they are required to have no regulation because your moral dictum trumps their preference.

          You are busybody fascists and that doesn’t change just because you throw around the word “liberty” as if you own it. Most people don’t think liberty only means freedom from government. Most people think that’s actually a very restrictive definition.

          1. I see you still are unable to comprehend what liberty means.

            1. Look out: he’ll accuse you of playing libertarian semantic word games, while he decides for everyone that “liberty” means whatever comes out of democracy.

              1. Liberty means the power to act as one pleases. What libertarians fail to understand is that threats to liberty can come from places other than government, and government exists to counter many of those threats.

                1. Then let’s compromise. We’ll have a government, but all it does is counter threats to liberty. Whaddaya say?

                  1. That’s still evading the all-important step of defining what liberty is and what constitute threats to it.

                    I think being guaranteed an education and healthcare vastly increase individual liberty. All libertarians think these are unacceptable because they require taxing people.

                    Liberties conflict–and libertarians can’t seem to grasp this. Or if they do, they automatically take the stance that being taxed is the worst imposition on liberty there is.

                    1. “I think being guaranteed an education and healthcare vastly increase individual liberty.”

                      Yes, putting a gun to everyone’s head to impose a value on particular methods of education and healthcare compared with other goods and services or other methods of providing education and healthcare enhances individual liberty. Makes sense. Who cares about opportunity cost?

                    2. What opportunity cost? The lost opportunity to grow up illiterate and working a manual farm tool? Stop invoking unicorns. It’s an admission of failure. If the market by itself were adequate to the task of providing universal quality education and healthcare, we wouldn’t even consider needing to have a conversation about government subsidizing them, because they would exist.

                    3. It is YOU who continually invoke unicorns, dipshit.

                      “Universal quality education?” Hi, I’m from earth, what planet are you from? The government schools defended by leftoids are an abysmal failure; “progressive education” means not teaching kids how to think or read or write, and so the kids are now teaching themselves some kind of primitive, Lord of the Flies “cray cray” language. Your government schools produce kids who speak like aborigines, you clueless leftoid idiot.

                    4. The inadequacy of a government program neither proves nor disproves its necessity. If we do away with it, you need to have an alternative (that’s where the unicorns come in). Barring unicorns, the other likely alternative would seem to prevail, that not enough resources and effort are being applied.

                    5. Thoroughly illogical on its face.

                      The inadequacy of a government program neither proves nor disproves its necessity.

                      It does, however, demonstrate its inefficacy.

                      If we do away with it, you need to have an alternative

                      Yes, The alternative is “Doing the same thing as you’re doing, but without that negative program which is hurting rather than helping.” You don’t need a substitute idea.

                      the other likely alternative would seem to prevail, that not enough resources and effort are being applied.

                      Or, possibly, that the program simply does not function as intended, despite resources. There are many, many examples of this, and yet you refuse to acknowledge any.

                    6. Yes, when you devote resources to one thing over another, there is always opportunity cost. Always. The problem isn’t the existence of the opportunity cost, the problem is your imposing the value of one resource over another, rather letting people decide that for themselves. You progs are so unimaginative, that it never once occurs to you that there are perhaps other means of educating children than hoarding them all into packed classrooms. Perhaps there are other means of providing healthcare than through insurance.

                      “If the market by itself were adequate to the task of providing universal quality education and healthcare, we wouldn’t even consider needing to have a conversation about government subsidizing them, because they would exist.”

                      No, cronies fear competition, so they like to conjure up this myth that markets can’t handle the task, and use government coercion to their advantage to stifle innovation that threatens their bottom line. That idea that an arbitrary central organization is better equipped to allocate all of the resources in an economy than the pricing mechanism is the idea that invokes unicorns.

                    7. We don’t know if the market can provide quality healthcare. What we had pre O-care was definitely not market health care. Consider the regulated cost, as opposed price, structures in government subsidized health care or the artificial state restrictions on the health care market.

                      Pretty good evidence that it would serve most people if the market had more influence in PRICES than it has now. Most procedures that have not been covered by insurance have become cheaper with better quality.

                    8. Liberty: The freedom to pursue one’s own interests and live life according to one’s own values, so long as doing so does not harm anyone else.

                      That seems like a reasonable definition to me. Note that there is nothing in that statement that implies a guarantee of success in one’s pursuits.

                      It seems to me that defining what constitutes “harm” is the more difficult part.

                    9. I think being guaranteed an education and healthcare vastly increase individual liberty.

                      But one is not merely guaranteed an education. It’s required. No one is guaranteed health care, only required to pay for it.

                    10. And I disagree about there being excessive authority in some but not all areas.

                    11. I think being guaranteed an education and healthcare vastly increase individual liberty.

                      Only by destroying more fundamental liberties, you’re not increasing liberty. You can’t guarantee people education and healthcare without violating property rights and self ownership.

                    12. Yes, being coerced is the biggest threat to liberty that exists. You can dress it up all you want, but voluntarism is superior to “liberal” government.

                  2. Incredible! Is there a name for such a form of government?

                  3. Tony will never make that compromise. While he attempts to use that argument to reduce his cognitive dissonance, reality is that he wants the force of government to be used to impose his view of how people should behave and how much they should value one good or service over another.

                    1. he wants the force of government to be used to impose his view of how people should behave and how much they should value one good or service over another.

                      Which is EXACTLY what you want too.

                      Do you deny that your preferred social order would require massive changes to the current one? Do you deny that many, if not most, of these changes would be opposed by the majority of the people the new system would cover?

                      What is the intermediate step I’m missing whereby we get to your “free” society without imposing anything on anyone?

                      You want to dictate the values of goods and services too. You want them to be whatever they would be in a market in which government is not a customer. That’s just as arbitrary as anything else. The market isn’t magic, it’s just a thing.

                    2. Tony:
                      blockquoteYou want to dictate the values of goods and services too.

                      This is the part where, if you prefer a different social order than Tony’s preferred one, he accuses you of trying to impose it on others.

                      Apparently, the status quo is the only social order you can impose on others, because, it really isn’t an imposition. Because people elect rulers, and Tony says so.

                    3. I’m willing to subject my preferred social order to the democratic process, and live with failure as the preferred alternative to autocracy. Are you?

                    4. Tony:

                      I’m willing to subject my preferred social order to the democratic process, and live with failure as the preferred alternative to autocracy. Are you?

                      Do you think your willingness matters?

                      autocracy
                      noun
                      1.a system of government by one person with absolute power.
                      synonyms: absolutism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,

                      And, if you aren’t willing to to subject your preferred social to the democratic process, does this directly lead to autocracy? And, if so, who is the person who then becomes our absolute ruler? You?

                      You’re speaking in eleutherophobic gibberish.

                    5. If you’re a willing subject, that’s cool. No one said that you and your buddies can’t form your own government, just as long is it doesn’t aggress against the rest of us.

                    6. I honestly don’t get what your disconnect is here. I think it may be that you’re looking at people as groups or blocks and not as individuals, but that might not be it.

                      Just because a majority opposes relinquishing their control doesn’t mean that their rights have been violated.

                    7. Do you deny that your preferred social order would require massive changes to the current one? Do you deny that many, if not most, of these changes would be opposed by the majority of the people the new system would cover?

                      No.

                      What is the intermediate step I’m missing whereby we get to your “free” society without imposing anything on anyone?

                      In a practical sense, probably the step where libertarians win elections and change laws through our Constitutionally defined system of government. In a more abstract sense, libertarians would not prevent people from imposing rules on themselves as individuals or groups of freely associating individuals. They would simply allow people to choose which impositions they wanted to live under. Typical minarchist disclaimers apply.

                      You want to dictate the values of goods and services too.

                      In individual transactions, sort of. I’ll buy or sell at a price I can agree at with someone else, or I won’t buy or sell. But in an aggregate sense, I want prices to be set by the emergent system of human trade we call markets. No one person (“You”) dictates those prices.

                    8. (Cont.)

                      You want them to be whatever they would be in a market in which government is not a customer.

                      Yes, a market founded on voluntary cooperation.

                      That’s just as arbitrary as anything else.

                      No, it is very clearly defined by its reliance on voluntary cooperation.

                      The market isn’t magic, it’s just a thing.

                      We agree on this, but it is a thing in the same category as evolution.

                    9. “You want them to be whatever they would be in a market in which government is not a customer.”

                      Yes, I want them to be whatever people decide for themselves. A hearty amen to everything LynchPin said.

                    10. The choice and vounltariness of democratic government is both superior and prior to the choice available in a market, which cannot exist without government anyway. The virtues of the market exist but they are limited. Government is just another, more fundamental, institution we have created, and we’re lucky if it’s democratically accountable. The market, however, never is.

                    11. The choice and vounltariness of democratic government is both superior and prior to the choice available in a market, which cannot exist without government anyway.

                      This statement is so absurd it is hard to know where to begin. Choice and voluntariness don’t exist in democratic government unless you are in the majority, and even then only in those specific issues. I have a hard time believing anyone exists who agrees with democratic outcomes 100% of the time. But where else can they turn? There is only one government.

                      Contrast that with the market, which offers myriad choices for almost any lifestyle. I mean, seriously, markets offer less choice than government? What are you on?

                      And markets can and do exist without government. Markets exist anywhere people trade. Ever heard of black and gray markets?

                      And government is not more fundamental than markets. Markets are an emergent system that arise out of people trading. I mean, my God, you can make a case that market analogues exist in chimpanzee societies. I suppose if you define government as hierarchy of any kind, then it might be as fundamental as markets, but certainly not more.

                    12. Tony said, “Government is just another, more fundamental, institution we have created, and we’re lucky if it’s democratically accountable. The market, however, never is.”

                      Thank goodness the market is NOT democratically accountable. Who the hell wants other deciding their market decisions? I do not want others to hold me to account of what I buy for dinner etc.

                      You are full of gibberish…never conceding when you have been shown beyond a doubt your error in accusations and thinking. Im beginning to wonder if you are not a plant, DESIGNED to make progressives/Democrats look bad.

                    13. No, the market is accountable to the choices of customers. The government, however, never is.

                    14. It is magic since in integrates impossibly complex information into relatively simple price signals that determine the effectiveness of an input into the system. This integrating effect over a large massively connected network is what makes the market so efficient and powerful. No set of models for the market (regulation, price controls, monetary policy, etc.) can process the data as accurately and efficiently as the market.

                      The market IS the economic analogy to climate, not a model of climate. We use the real thing to do our bidding.

                    15. Do you deny that your preferred social order would require massive changes to the current one?

                      What preferred social order? My preferred social order is society ordering itself without government coercion.

                      What is the intermediate step I’m missing whereby we get to your “free” society without imposing anything on anyone?

                      The only people I would impose anything on are the people who are currently imposing on people. Get it?

                      Probably not. You seem to be totally unable to understand the distinction between initiating force and voluntary transactions.

                      Distinction-challenged Tony.

                      You want to dictate the values of goods and services too.

                      Uh, no.

                      You want them to be whatever they would be in a market in which government is not a customer.

                      You do realize that market determined values are the opposite of dictated values, right?

                      No, probably not. Distinctions are not your forte.

                2. What libertarians fail to understand is that threats to liberty can come from places other than government, and government exists to counter many of those threats.

                  We do understand that. What do you think property rights are?

                  1. What do you think property rights are?

                    He thinks property rights are how the rich use the government to allow them to steal from starving children because not giving is taking and not taking is giving.

                  2. One of the exemptions you make to your underlying antigovernment principles (or rhetoric) that exists because you like it and think it’s useful. It’s one of the more physically coercive rights that exists.

                    The uncanny thing about where libertarians are OK with government and where they’re not is that you’re willing to deploy whatever collective force is necessary to defend the luxuries of the rich, but none to address the needs of the poor. There’s no logic to this, just plain callousness.

                    1. The uncanny thing about where libertarians are OK with government and where they’re not is that you’re willing to deploy whatever collective force is necessary to defend the luxuries of the rich

                      Collective force is not deployed to defend the luxuries of the rich (and the poor – property rights are universal) unless someone else initiates force to take those luxuries away. In this case government is responding to the initiation of force.

                      but none to address the needs of the poor.

                      Your addressing the needs of the poor requires deploying force without someone else initiating force. In this case government is initiating force.

                      Let’s see. On one hand we’ve got deploying force in response to someone else initiating force, and on the other hand we’ve got deploying force without someone else initiating force.

                      I see a distinction here.

                      Does Tony?

                      Doubt it.

                    2. Property rights protect the property of the poor from the rich. The rich don’t NEED property rights because they can always hire a private army. Property rights are public service that protects the weakest and gives them the means to better their own condition through their own effort. Efforts to give them *stuff* instead won’t ultimately help them if the basic contractual right to keep what they own is undermined. By undermining property rights, you make work riskier, and you make dependence less risky. If nothing I own is really mine, so I have no assurance that anything I build myself I will be allowed to keep, how likely am I to put any effort into building anything?

            2. And he doesn’t understand what fascism means. Hint: it involves the government.

          2. required to have no regulation

            Answer me honestly here. On the issue of voluntary action, do you
            a) truly not understand it
            b) willfully ignore that it exists
            c) find some other way entirely around it that I just can’t seem to grasp?

            1. “Answer me honestly here. On the issue of voluntary action, do you…”

              Pretty sure Tony is terrified of any action which has not been approved by ‘the powers’.
              He’s an infantile excuse for a moral agent and has no ability to decide on a moral action; he simple does what he is told.
              He’s a cretin; the sort who gladly kills when his ‘betters’ tell him to do so. The world would be a far better place if his mother had aborted him.

            2. I don’t understand what it has to do with the bit you quoted. If polluters voluntarily self-regulated, I wouldn’t have anything to say. In the real world, people get away with imposing costs and hardships on other people all the time, and the only way to rectify that is through some sort of coercion. Just as you believe if someone wants to voluntarily murder or trespass. Do you understand that a totally free world is neither possible nor desirable, and it’s not even desirable by you?

              1. Libertarians are not for “requiring no regulation”. Most just want to limit government regulation to areas where people’s freedoms are being infringed (yes, ancaps, but let’s limit this to minarchists and classical liberals). The rest is left to self-regulate through voluntary association.

                1. But don’t you see that by taking away my control over your actions, you’re imposing your will on me?

          3. Re: Tony,

            Instead of giving people who share the country an equal and free democratic choice on whether they want, say, pollution regulated,

            Who told you that free democratic choice has to be “given”? By whom?

            You started your argument on already shaky ground.

            you want to tell them they are required to have no regulation because your moral dictum trumps their preference.

            Who made that argument?

            The only argument a libertarian would posit is that majority rule cannot trump individual rights. That’s the moral argument.

            Now, it is one thing to want air as free of pollution as possible, but that does not mean a) regulations are the best way to achieve that and b) that everybody should be compelled to follow such regulation even when their activities do not pollute the air. That’s the economic objection.

            So here you are, confusing an economic argument for a moral one, telling us libertarians that we don’t want clean air.

            You are busybody fascists

            Ah, how quaint! Projection!

            1. The only argument a libertarian would posit is that majority rule cannot trump individual rights. That’s the moral argument.

              On this we all agree. But you seem to think the scope of individual rights includes everything on your personal policy checklist.

              And you’re just waving your hand on pollution. People will pollute if they are not forced to do otherwise. It’s the most human thing in the world to dump your toxic shit on other people’s lawns if you are entitled to do it at no cost. Your world only works if magic is real.

              1. If it means anything to you, Tony, I’m with you on laws against pollution. Polluting a common area or the property of others would be a crime in my libertopia.

              2. Re: Tony,

                But you seem to think the scope of individual rights includes everything on your personal policy checklist.

                Liberty, life, property – that’s the extend of my checklist. I don’t understand your implication.

                People will pollute if they are not forced to do otherwise.

                Oh, those evil, dastardly people! If only we had a government of people to make people behave like angels!

                It’s the most human thing in the world to dump your toxic shit on other people’s lawns

                You must live in some tough neighborhood. My neighbors are much more polite than that.

                Your world only works if magic is real.

                “A government of angels to rule over a population of beasts!” – I don’t think I am the one harboring magical thinking, bud.

                1. Yet you’ve yet to explain how to prevent external costs without magic (everyone being polite). Is that just one of those things that naturally occurs in the absence of government? Universal politeness?

                  1. Tony:

                    Is that just one of those things that naturally occurs in the absence of government? Universal politeness?

                    Is that something we get with the government? Universal politeness?

                    This is what we call a nirvana fallacy.

                  2. Re: Tony,

                    Yet you’ve yet to explain how to prevent external costs without magic (everyone being polite).

                    Your Hobbesian view of people feels religious in nature, Tony. There are bad people as well as there are good people – I don’t deny that. Your contention – that we need government so people are universally good – rests on the assumption that people are, by nature, savages (or sinners) who need guidance. You can’t make your argument without that assumption:

                    If some people are bad and some people are good, then having government to make everybody good would necessarily mean assuming good people are bad and treating them that way – otherwise, how would YOU know which ones are good and which ones are bad? If all people behave like good people, then why need government? And if all people are bad, then with WHOM would you populate government? Where are these angels?

                    External costs are internalized by the market all the time, Tony, be it through contracts, through tort (which derives from Common or Traditional law which is rooted in Natural Law) or by entrepreneurs. The fact that you don’t see this or are unwilling to is not my problem. Your education is your own business, not mine.

              3. Tony:

                On this we all agree. But you seem to think the scope of individual rights includes everything on your personal policy checklist.

                As opposed to Tony, who considers the scope of individual rights as… everything on his personal policy checklist.

                1. Not at all. Most things I want subject to a simple majority vote of representatives.

                  Or that thing you guys call mob rule!

                  1. Tony:

                    Not at all. Most things I want subject to a simple majority vote of representatives.

                    By “most”, you mean that, when majorities vote for representatives and you agree with the outcome, you want those to be up for majority rule.

                    The others, (i.e., gay marriage, etc.), you reserve your own opinions for.

                    Which is just another way of saying “your personal policy checklist.”

                    Being OK with leaving it to majority rule, as long as the majority agrees with you, isn’t exactly avoiding the subjective preferences of your own policies.

              4. Tony:

                People will pollute if they are not forced to do otherwise. It’s the most human thing in the world to dump your toxic shit on other people’s lawns if you are entitled to do it at no cost. Your world only works if magic is real.

                And your world view only works if you incorrectly assume that only governments are capable of force.

                1. I’m making the exact opposite argument. Libertarians are the ones who seem to think only government is capable of force.

                  1. Tony:

                    I’m making the exact opposite argument. Libertarians are the ones who seem to think only government is capable of force.

                    I don’t think you’re arguments mean what you think they mean.

                    Really? So, libertarians think that only the government is capable of murder?

                    Fascinating world view.

                    If you think that people other than government can use fore, then people other than government can keep people from polluting, and no magic is required to use force to stop people from polluting.

                    When you untangle your own contradiction, get back to us.

                  2. Re: Tony,

                    Libertarians are the ones who seem to think only government is capable of force.

                    That’s never been the argument from libertarians at all. Stop misrepresenting the argument.

                    The argument is that government is force, aggression, rape, murder and thievery exclusively, not that it is the only one capable of those things.

                  3. I’m making the exact opposite argument. Libertarians are the ones who seem to think only government is capable of force.

                    No. Libertarians understand that the only thing government is capable of is force. Everything it does is predicated on force. It’s not the only thing capable of force. The only thing it is capable of is force.

                    See the distinction? Didn’t think so.

                    Maybe a quote for George Washington might help.

                    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

                    Does that help?

                    Didn’t think so.

                    Distinction-challenged moron.

              5. Polluting others property would be a crime to libertarians. You would also be responsible for polluting air that we breathe. Most likely in civil court but most libertarians think this is something that government does serve a purpose for.

                You should know this by now with how long youve been here.

                We tend to think government is onerous and counterproductive with its current policies.

          4. Freedom is having the State tell you how much your toilet can flush, your shower can flow, if you can drink raw milk or not, what you can eat, drink, smoke, how fast you may travel, where you may travel, what you may travel with in your possession, what you can build on your own land, who you can sell, rent or trade with, who you can associate with, how you can spend your own money or labor, how you may light your home, what you take for medication – even when dying, where and how you may defend yourself or your own home…

          5. busybody…that too fucking rich. Trivially it is the Progs who are the fascists. One can site the perverted Prog political philosophy of expert rule and rejection of timeless principles of governance or just as easily the attraction of eugenics/Italian fascism that all the hardcore Wisconsin/Wilson era Progs professed publicly before it became inconvenient for them to continue to back little “f” fascism.

          6. Does anyone else’s inner monologue automatically read Tony’s posts in the voice of Special Ed from Crank Yankers?

          7. From my Observation only ; Libertarians tend to support the enforcement of Mallum En Se crimes but not those of Mallum Prohibitas because laws need justification for their creation, or the ” If government is using force against a citizen they need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that force is the only recourse available” dictum. If there is no victim or person wronged is it not wrong that there still exists a fine or a tribute of life and liberty to the state for the sake of the state?

            Libertarianism isnt about how much we can get away with as much as it is about how little we need to reflexively use force (often Violent and more destructive than the crime)to coerce others out of unwanted behavior.
            I believe in a voluntary society of cooperation for mutual benefit and capital gain (Anarco-Capitalism), no we aren’t ready for it yet because there are some idiots who would stop treating their chemical waste to make a quick buck but Libertarianism would be a step towards it to see how unregulated we can actually live without trampling on one anothers life liberty and pursuit of happiness, including yours tony, and shreeks as well… but of course you would much rather have the state regulate your freedoms to you so that you can play getcha with your neighbors, and you call us “busy-bodies”

            1. We regulate things that have proved themselves to need regulating. Any other encroachment I’d be against. But people will pollute, they will create systemic economic risk, they will abuse workers, they will do all the things that they did before regulations prevented them. Not everyone, but in capitalism, ruthlessness tends to be an asset, does it not?

              My perspective is it is both entirely about freedom, and not about freedom at all as you define it. Pooling resources in order to accomplish large projects (educating a population, building a dam, fighting a war, whatever) is a great and useful human tool. Such power can be abused, but that power has existed ever since we invented large communities, and the key was to put it under control of the checks and balances of modern democracy, an innovation that took thousands of years.

              The utopia you’re describing is neither distinguishable from a modern democratic state (since they operate according to the free choice of the participants) or full of magic (like claims that only a few idiots would pollute instead of everyone for whom it would be economically beneficial).

              1. I should say *either indistinguishable

              2. We regulate things that have proved themselves to need regulating.

                Or that some crony or lobbyist has decided would be in their best interest to regulate.

                1. Most lobbyists are in the business of getting their clients out of regulations. Of course I don’t support corruption. And of course preventing corruption means stronger governing mechanisms.

                  1. Most lobbyists are in the business of getting their clients out of regulations.

                    Um, no. Most lobbyists are treasure hunting, looking for “investments” and handouts or regulations that restrict their particular market.

              3. a modern democratic state (since they operate according to the free choice of the participants)

                You can’t be that naive.

                1. I’m not, but I also can’t believe in fairy tale bullshit.

                  Libertarians have never explained the intermediate step between here and their nondemocratic but nonetheless free society.

                  1. Tony:

                    Libertarians have never explained the intermediate step between here and their nondemocratic but nonetheless free society.

                    And argument from ignorance is pure awesome.

              4. “We regulate things that have proved themselves to need regulating. ”

                HA! Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

          8. Instead of giving people who share the country an equal and free democratic choice on whether they want, say, pollution regulated…

            So, let me ask you, where does that “free democratic choice” stop, Tony? Shall we include sexual behavior? Religious observance? Why not what you say about Republicans? It doesn’t strike me that your argument allows for any particular limit to the power of the state other than “Tony disapproves”.

            1. States are limited by law itself. But literally everything is subject to some size of majority. We could bring back slavery if enough people managed to get together to repeal the 13th Amendment. A sufficiently motivated majority can (and has) declare certain sexual practices illegal. But do you know why this is preferable to any other system? Because any other system is some autocrat declaring things by fiat.

              I accept that this means I won’t get my way all the time. This seems to be an incomprehensible situation to libertarians.

              1. Tony:

                I accept that this means I won’t get my way all the time. This seems to be an incomprehensible situation to libertarians.

                No, you just have much lower standards, or a higher tolerance for serfdom.

                1. So how do you get your way? Explain the means. You’d be the first.

                  1. Tony:

                    So how do you get your way? Explain the means. You’d be the first.

                    Oh, so I need, like, a 5 point plan to create libertopia?

                    Nevermind, then. I accept the status quo.

                    1. Don’t you think it would help?

                    2. Tony:

                      Don’t you think it would help?

                      Well, Socrates was explaining that slavery was wrong about 2000 years ago. Before he had any possibility of making it a reality. Or, really making anything a reality before they killed him.

                      I guess, had you been alive then, you’d tell him to shut up until he came up with a 5 point plan to end slavery. Then, you would have waited until the abolishment of slavery came out of a democratic process, and you could see the results, before declaring the abolishment of slavery awesome.

                      Perhaps a good, first step towards any social change, is people realizing the truth and talking about it, while it isn’t popular, and there isn’t any clear path towards making it widely accepted.

                      For example: gay marriage. When gay marriage was explicitly prohibited everywhere, did you “accept” this? And, what did that acceptance mean? Does it just mean you’re not willing to fight and die in a revolution over it? Most people would consider that a very narrow definition of “acceptance”. And, if that’s your definition, than most libertarians “accept” the status quo.

                      Still, it would be strange to say, in that time, if someone asks, that, yes, you “accept” bans on gay marriage. Should that be your required line until gay marriage becomes permissible by everyone? And, if that’s the standard that must be reached before talking about it, would there be any hope of society coming around?

                      Your philosophy can only endorse the status quo.

              2. Re: Tony,

                States are limited by law itself.

                Ah… Who’s being naive, Kate?

                But literally everything is subject to some size of majority.

                Like Prop 8.

                No, wait – it was overturned by a tiny minority.

                Imbecile.

              3. “I accept that this means I won’t get my way all the time. This seems to be an incomprehensible situation to libertarians.”

                What’s incomprehensible is that you prefer a system of coercion over voluntary exchange, where everyone, including you, actually gets their way all of the time (i.e. gets what they paid for).

                1. People get their way all of the time. I want unicorns. Delivered tomorrow.

                  1. Again, I said get what you pay for Tony. That’s the part your not grasping. The pricing mechanism is better equipped to allocate the resources in an economy than the arbitrary whims of a majority or a bureaucracy.

              4. We could bring back slavery if enough people managed to get together to repeal the 13th Amendment.

                And I suppose you would expect the Blacks should just meekly go along with the restoration of slavery, because the majority said so.

                Whereas I would expect them to pick up a fucking gun and shoot any fucker that tried to put them in chains. And I would applaud them and help them. Majority be damned.

                1. Yeah, me too, because enslaving human beings is a violation of basic human rights and of democracy. But not getting your way on healthcare policy isn’t quite the same thing. Or is it? Where’s your line between acquiescence and armed rebellion?

                  But even with your being on the right side this time, you’re asserting an autocratic privilege. You don’t think even a constitutionally required supermajority should be able to counter your own personal preferences. I’m not saying slavery is ever going to be discovered to be tolerable (it can’t be, as a democratically enacted slavery regime self-contradicts), but people deeming certain rules absolutely immutable is scary and dictatorial.

                  1. Which is to say, in my system slavery is prevented by the hard work of making liberal attitudes toward equality ubiquitous. While your strategy is to deploy your unicorn cavalry.

                    And by hard work I mean it took one of the bloodiest exercises of government power in this country’s history to eradicate it.

                    1. Yeah, me too, because enslaving human beings is a violation of basic human rights and of democracy.

                      in my system slavery is prevented by the hard work of making liberal attitudes toward equality ubiquitous

                      I’m having trouble understanding you. Would you, or would you not, go against the will of the majority and deploy your “unicorn cavalry” if the majority happened to not agree with you?

                      It’s all nice and everything to say you would do everything through reasoned persuasion. But lets suppose that through some miracle the majority doesn’t actually believe the right and good thing that you believe. I know that sounds ludicrous but try to imagine it.

                    2. A majority of southerners didn’t, and they believed in slavery so much they were willing to die for it in a bloody war. Apparently sometimes that’s necessary, but I’d prefer to avoid it when possible.

                      For most things that aren’t slavery, majority rules is only fair.

                    3. Tony:

                      For most things that aren’t slavery, majority rules is only fair.

                      Again, you’re still deciding what’s up to majority rule, and what isn’t.

                      How is that not a reflection of your preferences?

                  2. “enslaving human beings is a violation of basic human rights and of democracy.”

                    Slavery is NOT a violation of democracy and it is quite possible under it. Democracy is only a means. It is not a moral ends.

                    Democracy only means majority rule. If the majority vote slavery, slavery is the law.

                    1. But if some people are slaves, they aren’t allowed a vote, and democracy is thus not being practiced, since democracy requires that everyone have an equal say over their own government.

                    2. Tony:

                      But if some people are slaves, they aren’t allowed a vote, and democracy is thus not being practiced, since democracy requires that everyone have an equal say over their own government.

                      No, it doesn’t. There has been democracy and slavery, simultaneously. Majorities can vote to allow slavery.

                      You can say that that goes against some ideal you have, and label that ideal “democracy”, but you’re just bastardizing words, and pretending that all of your ideals fall out of democracy, when they really don’t.

                  3. Tony:

                    Yeah, me too, because enslaving human beings is a violation of basic human rights and of democracy.

                    So, which is more important? Is slavery bad mostly because it violates basic human rights? Or because slaves can’t vote?

                    The hoop-jumping you have to do to tie every right in with democracy is commendable, but, to anyone with a common sense of decency, seems rather silly.

                    Lots of people can’t vote. Criminals can’t vote. Teenagers can’t vote. Are they slaves?

                    Democracy and slavery were compatible for centuries.

                    Democracy is just a way to make a decision: choose voters, have said voters vote to choose outcome. It doesn’t tell you how to make any decisions, including who can and cannot vote. Your desire to allow as many people to vote as possible is rooted in a sense of fairness, which has to be based on something other than democracy, since voting doesn’t require fairness. See history.

                    but people deeming certain rules absolutely immutable is scary and dictatorial.

                    Your arguments are all based on fear. I’m sorry if human rights are scary, but they don’t go away because you’re afraid.

                    1. I think even imprisoned felons should be entitled to vote (they are closer to their government than anyone), and could see lowering the voting age. Of course democracy is never without impurity, but denying the franchise to a whole race of people pretty much qualifies as a form of tyranny.

                      But I get your point, democracy is just a means. Nevertheless, since there is no such thing as magic, I can’t invoke inherent rights either. I don’t think we can do better than to hang onto the precarious liberalism we’ve innovated and hope it lasts. Because you sure as hell aren’t going to prevent abuses of it by shouting about natural rights into the wind.

                    2. Tony:

                      But I get your point, democracy is just a means. Nevertheless, since there is no such thing as magic, I can’t invoke inherent rights either. I don’t think we can do better than to hang onto the precarious liberalism we’ve innovated and hope it lasts. Because you sure as hell aren’t going to prevent abuses of it by shouting about natural rights into the wind.

                      OK, let’s assume you want to use democracy. How does one decide how to vote? What should I determine is or is not a right, so that I can vote accordingly?

                      Democracy doesn’t tell me that; it doesn’t tell me how to vote. So, how would I go about thinking about rights without thinking about rights?

                      Not believing in rights, or particular concepts of rights, doesn’t make the issue go away. And, once you have a concept of rights as you see them, democracy is either consistent with them, or it is not.

                      People aren’t required to believe that whatever comes out of democracy must be good, just out of respect for the system.

          9. Instead of giving people who share the country an equal and free democratic choice on whether they want, say, pollution regulated, you want to tell them they are required to have no regulation because your moral dictum trumps their preference.

            In a perfectly libertarian society, you can still sue people for polluting your property.

            The issue is not about whether there is any regulation. It’s about HOW it’s being regulated. Are we going to have regulations that specify exactly what technologies people are allowed to use, what they can and can’t do, even before any harm has been proven, or are we going to have a system where the actual realized costs of pollution are directly tied back to polluters via property rights and liability. System B strikes me as much more inherently fair, not to mention cheaper.

            1. Hazel,

              Correct. Sheldon Richman wrote an article a few years ago exactly about this. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman…..z2uO8HE0s3

              It is not about IF there is regulation, it is really about WHO does the regulating.

              To Tony and others who believe as he/she does: Make no mistake, there will be regulation. Libertarians prefer the regulating of the market over the coercion of a government.

          10. I’m late but better late than never.

            Fuck, you’re stupid Tony.

      4. Or the power they have now that government isn’t around to tell them what they can’t do to the little guy. Hate to break it to you but history isn’t exactly lacking for examples of the powerful oppressing the weak, whether they do it through formal government or not.

        1. I see distinction-challenged Tony still can’t comprehend the distinction between limited government and no government.

          1. Listen to me you cliche-spouting moron. Limited government means government which means force, and none of the absolutist bullshit you throw at me means anything. If you want a more limited government, fine, but don’t tell me you’re against government coercion. You’re just against certain policies.

            1. Re: Tony,

              If you want a more limited government, fine, but don’t tell me you’re against government coercion.

              Wow! Somebody call SETI – we found signs of intelligent life, at last!

            2. Tony:

              If you want a more limited government, fine, but don’t tell me you’re against government coercion. You’re just against certain policies.

              Unlike Tony, who’s… just against certain policies.

            3. Limited government means a government which uses force only in reaction to force (and fraud).

              See the distinction?

              Didn’t think so.

            4. Tony,

              You must be purposefully na?ve.

              Government coercion of those who are innocent and have not violated rights is ok.

              It is ok to coerce a murderer of an innocent human into jail. They violated the negative right to another’s life.

              It is not ok to use government to coerce innocent people in order to get what you want or to achieve your ideal society.

              There are good arguments out there for no government in protecting humans rights. But you will find the majority of Libertarians accept a government that only protects natural or negative rights.

              You are either extremely na?ve, hell-bent on purposely misquoting what Libertarians believe and practice while trying to find fodder to justify it, or are a plant designed to make progressives/Democrats look very very bad.

              1. There is no such thing as a natural right or a negative right. All rights are constructions of a society and its enforcement institution.

                But you agree with what I said. You’re not against using government force. You’re just against using it for certain purposes.

            5. “Listen to me you cliche-spouting moron.”

              I’ll bet you sound extra-tough practicing that in the mirror.

        2. “Or the power they have now that government isn’t around to tell them what they can’t do to the little guy.”

          Because libertarians are totally fine with murder, robbery, slavery, etc. You got us Tony. Obviously, opposing ineffective regulatory agencies and the welfare state means that we must support all of those things.

          And your conclusion from history is that powerful people hate powerful governments? Good one

          1. Don’t you know, Tony would be out murdering people if it wasn’t for government telling him not to.

            No, seriously.

            1. I wish we could nationally televise a reenactment of these comment section “debates”. Nothing might hurt the progressive cause more.

            2. He would also be out murdering people if the government told him to.
              He admits to having no principles or morality; the means are irrelevant to him.

              1. To be fair, if I thought I could get away with it I’d be out there murdering people like Tony because I view their support of coercive policies as an initiation of force against me.

            3. I tell you this much, it’s the only thing that keeps ME from killing him.

            4. Are you claiming that there would be as much or less murder without enforcement of laws against murder?

              1. Holy shit you’re stupid.

              2. Your insistence that there being laws against murder is the only thing holding humanity back from doing it says a lot about your character.

                1. But I’m not worried about myself, I’m worried about the people around me who will become murderers once it becomes legal.

              3. FOAD TONY.

          2. It means you’re not against government coercion, so stop saying that you are.

            1. Tony:

              It means you’re not against government coercion, so stop saying that you are.

              Tony, you’re arguing with the libertarians who rent space in your head again.

        3. Hate to break it to you but history isn’t exactly lacking for examples of the powerful oppressing the weak…

          Yes, and it has more often than not been given legitimacy by law. I defy you to provide an example of institutionalized oppression that is not a product of government, law, or some form of ritualized authority.

          If the only positive aspect of increased liberty is that theft and assault would be less frequently sanctioned by law that would be a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

          1. ALL THE YES.

          2. “some form of ritualized authority”

            That’s quite an escape hatch. Does that include the authority found in the autocratic environment known as a corporation? A church? The family unit?

            Because I contend that there is no such thing as getting rid of hierarchies of authority. There is only protecting individual autonomy by checking the powers that exist in the world.

            1. “There is only protecting individual autonomy by checking the powers that exist in the world.”

              And yet you want to use those powers to get your way. When you understand the distinction between self-defense and coercion, get back to us. Some hierarchies are voluntary, some are forced. You want to use the forced ones to check the voluntary ones from behaving in ways that you don’t like.

            2. “Because I contend that there is no such thing as getting rid of hierarchies of authority. There is only protecting individual autonomy by checking the powers that exist in the world.”

              And yet you will die insisting that good intentions can circumvent natural systems of emergence and also the weather.

        4. Re: Tony,

          Or the power they have now that government isn’t around to tell them what they can’t do to the little guy.

          And you do not disappoint. You still continue to posit that same unsubstantiated, fallacious argument.

          Hate to break it to you but history isn’t exactly lacking for examples of the powerful oppressing the weak, whether they do it through formal government or not.

          That may be so, but I still wonder exactly when has a manufacturer of, let’s say, bicycles, oppressed “the little guy”? Because conflating hordes of Mongols or land barons or kings and princes with manufacturers of pots and pans or spatulas (for instance) is engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

          1. The bicycle manufacturer is making a profit. That makes him evil incarnate.

          2. The bicycle manufacturer is making a profit. That makes him evil incarnate.

        5. Opression is always from government or some form of it.

          If you had any inkling of history and even a dab of common sense you would understand this.

          However, you are a fucking moron.

          It is easy to see why you support government opression, because without it you’d be forced to be a productive member of society.

          This “force” is what you claim libertarians would impose on others. Force it may perhaps be by your definition, but to a libertarian force is only defined by the aggression behind it.

          Too difficult for someone like you to grasp Tony.

          1. Opression is always from government or some form of it.

            Really? That is quite a claim, and seems obvious nonsense on its face, yet you provide no justification for it, preferring name-calling.

            1. Re: Tony,

              That is quite a claim [that oppression is always from government]

              I don’t know what is more pathetic, Tony: your silly projections (“Libertarians want slavery!”) or your complete denial of reality.

            2. Yet you can’t be bothered to present evidence to the contrary. Curious.

        6. Cite one example of non-hierarchy, non-government sanctioned oppression of the weak, if you can that is…..

          1. Why non-hierarchy? The strong oppressing the weak is by definition hierarchical.

          2. You can’t say non-hierarchy because that’s where oppression happens. Once the oppressing happens you’re in a hierarchical relationship right there.

            1. I need to refresh before I post.

      5. Well, to be fair to Tony

        That was just asking for it.

  13. Libertarians are small in number, but they make up for it by vicious infighting.

    1. Fuck off, Eddie. ๐Ÿ˜›

    2. Its the curse of thinking freely and having a free marketplace of ideas. So individualistic that Libertarians have more sub-genres than Metal music.
      Freedom is infectious
      Spread the disease

      1. Freedom is infectious
        Spread the disease

        Nice!

        1. Sheathe your sword, for the Libertarian horde!

      2. Come on, there are only a handful of sub-genres:

        Anarcho-capitalists
        Minarchists
        Georgists
        Right-wing fundamentalist fellow travelers and champions of liberty!
        Maherists (people who self-identify as libertarian… for some reason)

        Compare to:

        Death metal
        Speed metal
        Thrash
        Technical death metal
        Black metal
        Progressive metal
        Symphonic metal
        Metalcore
        Progcore
        Nu metal
        Jazz metal
        Alternative metal
        Nu symphonic black progcore
        Post-metal
        Used to be black/death metal but are now shoegaze/post-rock

        1. I had never heard of Georgism before this. Thanks, Marc.

        2. I’m gonna say you forgot the classical liberals and that Georgism is not libertarian, per se.

          1. A. J. Nock was a Georgist, and I don’t think anyone would claim he wasn’t a libertarian. I’m of the opinion that we should reserve the term libertarian for the general category of political ideology that recognizes the autonomy of the individual in society as the guiding principle for social order. That should allow us to distinguish ourselves from the statists and at the same time conduct our endless internecine squabbles. Everyone wins!

  14. My favorite thing about being libertarian is taking shit from both teams about how libertarian ideas could never work when theirs are crumbling around us.

    1. And yet, they both claim to like certain libertarian ideas, even if they don’t admit to it.

  15. Seriously, though, these people are shitting their pants and screeching hysterically about us. We’re definitely in the “fight” stage in the ignore/laugh/fight/capitulate progression.

    1. I realized it was “serious” when Rand Paul became the go-to punching bag for the insufferable progressives who can’t avoid turning all discussions political. Any time they want to make some lame political joke about anything anti-Obama, Rand Paul is their man. Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Ryan; all replaced.

      1. What really sticks in my craw are the progs and conservatives who might disagree with Rand Paul on one or two things, and therefore everything he says or does or supports is invalid. They literally don’t understand what principle is, and get utterly confused (and angered) by his thoughts and actions.

      2. The funny thing is that Rand Paul is barely libertarian if you can call him that, and he doesn’t even like to be called that.

      3. This is a GOOD thing. If the ideas didn’t have power that they found actually threatening, they wouldn’t waste their time attacking them.

        “When you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target.”

  16. If, as Posner asserts, “fear of government is far more serious than fear of flying,” it must be serious indeed. Increased driving after Sept. 11, 2001, may have led to more than 1,500 additional road deaths in the year after the attacks. How many people did post-9/11 fear of government kill?

    Posner actually seems to be aware of this, at least in the abstract. Here is the relevant part of the column.

    Terrified fliers drive long distances, creating vastly more risk than that which they avoided.

    In fact, the fear of government is far more serious than the fear of flying or the fear of nuclear power. If people trust the government, they may accept its assurances that flying or nuclear power is safe. They may absorb the messages of its educational programs. If they don’t trust the government, then no go.

    It’s an amazingly convoluted argument for a few reasons. First, he is basically blaming distrust of government for fear of flying. Second, fear of nuclear power is probably highest among liberals, who he claims inherently trust government more. Third, government doesn’t trust nuclear power. And fourth, it conveniently ignores all the cases of government “educational programs” being patently wrong. I’d say its worse than Healey makes it seem.

    1. There’s also a lot of disagreement as to how much safer a 1500 mile plane trip really is compared to a 1500 mile car trip.

      Not all driving miles are created equal when it comes to safety, but these arguments always assume that they are.

  17. Also from Posner…

    without trust in government liberalism is impossible

    Except “liberals” (progressives) don’t trust government. Trust is predicated on meeting an expectation of continued respect and trustworthiness. Government fails that test repeatedly. Liberals have faith in government.

    1. Liberals have faith in government.

      Pretty much. Government is, figuratively speaking, God to them. So when we don’t have the same faith in government as them, it’s like telling a hardcore Christian fundamentalist that you don’t believe in Christ. You can expect frothing at the mouth and an epic shitstorm in response. These people are really religious extremists, they just don’t realize it.

  18. the left is always claiming the parties need to work together and compromise and when a group does try to work with them on some issues they try to make those people out to be crazed people and that they shouldn’t work with them. In other words the left does not want to work with anybody period they want everything there way or the highway. here we have them trashing the libertarians who would work with them and they trashed the Tea Party who have similar oppinons on the Bank bailout but the left refuses to work with them as well and instead makes all other out to be evil in one form or other.

    1. By work with, they (progtards) mean submit to.

      FTFY

  19. Can you PLEASE do a piece on this shit show from Salon ?

    http://www.salon.com/2014/02/2…..m_lincoln/

    1. It appears that Joker, PC and other H&R regulars have already rallied to the cause.

      1. A Serious Man and Wareagle, that is.

        1. Jesus christ. kudos to wareagle and serious man (dunno if serious man comments here). I would join you, but I’ve already showered for the day.

      2. I’m unfamiliar to those sites. Care to introduce me with links?

      3. Fuck, sorry. Hit and Run. Searched and cannot find anything regarding it. I’d like to know where to find the hidden gems around here.

  20. I’ve coined the Latin word for this: libertatamantaphobia. Eleutherophobia already exists (and is a disease plaguing the vast majority of human beings), but this Sustein shit is more about the fear of libertarians as people.

    1. I’ve changed the spelling to libertatamantophobia

      1. They are afraid of bared breasts? My Latin is rusty.

  21. LIBERTARIANS =

    – POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT
    – SOCIALLY REJECTED
    – SAD DEFENDERS OF AMORAL EGOTISM
    – INTELLECTUALLY DISPROVED

    AND THE MOST DANGEROUS FORCE IN AMERICA TODAY

    seems legit

  22. “It’s corrupting progressivism”

    I would prefer that it destroyed progressivism, which I view as the most destructive political philosophy in the modern world.

    1. “Corrupting progressivism” is redundant anyway.

      1. Yup. It’s like saying Luke Skywalker corrupted Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi.

  23. That paper offers two historical examples of the terrible consequences that can ensue when people let themselves get carried away by distrust of government. They are, and I’m not making this up: (1) the American Revolution…

    Huh… I guess there are still a few loyalists around after all this time.

  24. I guess you can count me in as paranoid.

  25. Well, you’ve got to be careful about those libertarians. They keep trying to take over the world and leave everyone alone.

  26. EDG reppin’ LBC|2.25.14 @ 12:13PM|#
    “I’m so glad I am a libertarian. Really, I got into it for the amazing feeling of CONTROL I have over my fellow Americans. We have infiltrated government at all levels, businesses and corporations, and most of civil society. Our agenda is powerful, and we will soon bring America to it’s knees! It’s such a rush!!”

    Dunno about you, but I’m looking forward to forcing people to be free! I’m gonna talk until they give in!

    1. They wont give in. They will get mad and demand you be put in a rubber room somewhere in an undisclosed prison in the name of saving you from yourself and of course for the children.

      1. See Tony above; they will demand to be regulated! How can they live without being told what to do?

        1. Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

        2. Don’t knock regulation. They need the smart (so called educated) people to help them with these difficult processes. This is the only way they know how to get free shit.

          /s

  27. Where are my orphans damn it. I was promised orphans and power when I unlocked the decoder ring.

    1. Read the fine print.

      You have to pay for Shipping and Handling before your first orphan is delivered.

      1. Damn, foiled again by fine print.

        Maybe I need to get my monocle prescription as a bifocal.

        1. well how else will they learn to become productive members of society?

  28. I think what scares progressives is the fact that the beliefs and ideas Libertarians & Minarchists espouse are much more compelling than what either party puts forth. It’s like that comment made by that Buttplug guy on one of the posts – paraphrasing: Marxism would thrive if it weren’t for capitalism. I hope we can get to the point where our ideas continue to be part of the central debate on key issues. One of my first readings in Reason was an article that essentially asked liberals: Don’t you think it would be a better world to argue about social programs, unions and the environment if we didn’t have cronyism, government telling you who to marry, undue military interventions, and government listening to your phone calls?

    1. Progressives want everything to be controlled.

      Libertarians want liberty.

      They are polar opposites of each other.

      1. Progressives think with emotion. Then they tell you that you have to be that way too. Because if you aren’t, you hate kids, are a racist, homophobe…blah blah blah.

        Me…I just want to be left the fuck alone!

        It is really too bad that Marx didn’t die much sooner in his life.

        Anyone got access to a time machine?

        1. Marx didn’t have any new ideas. Collectivism isn’t a new concept. Look up the Mayflower Compact. They tried communism. They almost died.

          Bastiat put it best when he said “Government is the great fiction where everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.”

          1. Marx didn’t have any new ideas.

            This. Marx was one of the most unoriginal thinkers I’ve ever encountered. Most of his ideas were recycled crap that had already been disproved before he repackaged them. Extremely overrated, to say the least.

            1. I was referring to the writings. Not so much that they were new ideas. Just that he seems to still be looked up to by so many morons.

              Collectivism fails when not everyone can see everyone else’s activities (keeping people honest so to speak) and when one is not free to leave the collective on their own. And there are many other reasons too. But those two always strike me as the biggest pitfalls in that ideology.

      2. I had one idiot tell me they were a progressive-libertarian. I tried to inform them the two were diametrically opposed, but ran into a brick wall with it. It was stupid all the way down after that.

        1. For many people the only thing they know about libertarians is legalizing weed. Without understanding why.

          1. Hey, weed makes me a nice guy. ๐Ÿ˜€ I am all for not throwing me in jail when I want to get high, cook dinner, and generally laugh at shit that progressives get all foamed at the mouth about.

            But yeah, pot has been illegal for 75+ years and it hasn’t done any good. A lot of other drugs too.

            If people want to kill themselves with stuff, let them. It’s about one’s own body and freedom to do what you want with it.

          2. Lol legalizing weed…. or abandoning a costly and socially destructive drug war conducted upon Americans without their consent

        2. the problem with progressives is that they think democracy is a blunt weapon to beat the minorities into consent with.

          Progressive-Libertarian must mean trusting the state to grant liberty to those who are deemed to be “responsible enough” (party members) whilst denying it to all those who exhibit any behavior not state sanctioned as good or moral
          or the “Liberty for me, not for thee” dictum

          1. I would go with “protected classes” instead of “responsible enough”. They don’t care for old white men. I think it has to do with old wrinkly balls or something.

            1. as opposed to old wrinkly socialist cunts?

              1. FEMINISM!!!

        3. I’ve seen a couple of those before. Personally I just consider them to be progressives who have enough awareness to recognize the hypocrisy of their ideology but hold to it anyway.

          1. Pretty much, like a kid who wants to believe in Santa after he catches his parents wrapping the toys for Christmas.
            A progressive is the child that needs a parent to tell them right from wrong
            A libertarian is the adult who resents being told what they can and cant do after making sound life choices and financial decisions

        4. Here is one of my favorites: Compassionate-Libertarian. WTF is that?

  29. SOmetimes man you jsut have to roll with it.
    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

    1. Who ARE you?

  30. Now days, we are born into being wards of the state. Progressive threat of force at it’s best.

  31. I’m still racking my brain for why anarchists taking over would be a problem… Unless dusty Reid is saying it is a problem for big government and communism to entertain the ideas of freedom for citizens, then yes I concur, the greatest threat to the monopolization of force for personal gain are those who know the truth of the world “we are not tools of the government nor anyone else”

  32. You know, speaking of government force, economic slavery, the end of privacy…

    I wonder what will happen when the average Joe is finally able to buy a service robot that comes with advanced cognitive intelligence. You think we have problems now…. Just wait till that happens. It will be the biggest pro government campaign (lies) in the last 100 years.

    When the line of human individualism becomes blurred with the lines of technology, it will be a hell of a show.

    1. I have always wondered how and when did the big-government parties convince the most of the populace that libertarians are pot smoking anarchists who want life’s version of a cage match. Who fomented that stigma, and how?

      P.S. I am first generation immigrant. Parents are naturalized.

      1. I wouldn’t be totally opposed to seeing some of the politicians go at it in a cage match if we can get it on pay per view. And we should be able to bet on the matches too.

  33. Didn’t live in the US full time until ’97, so my knowledge of history and politics might be a bit rudimentary compared to some guys/gals here.

  34. I think that more than a few people out there are somewhat confused about the “Libertarian Movement”. I have listened to people in a Political Science College class who describe it as an offshoot of the Tea Party. Others believe it is a smoke screen for Conservatism. Still I have heard others say it is nothing but the Hippie Movement returned with a new agenda of looking more respectable. In addition, the “golden boy” of the movement at the political level seems to be Rand Paul who is alternately praised and cursed by so called Libertarians. It is a legitimate question (in my opinion) to seriously ask how the Libertarians view themselves, outside of the fact that they can’t stand Obama of course.

    1. I think it’s pretty clear that they’re a branch of the American right-wing movement. Their number one enemy is liberals, and if they aren’t policing themselves too well they will launch into outright bending-over-backward defending this or that Republican. This despite that fact that all liberals want to do is regulate pollution and socialize healthcare, while Republicans want to start holy wars and jail them for fellatio.

      A unified theory of libertarianism would, I think, start with acknowledging that they’re almost universally white and male. Why is this important? I believe that if this country had been founded and dominated by black women instead, there would be a libertarian movement (leave me alone!) and it would be nearly universally black and female. People born into relative privilege obviously tend to have a bias against collective action to increase opportunities for others, since the status quo already provides most of the benefits to them.

      That’s not to say that they don’t want to radically alter society in a way that would make even their lives much riskier, but they almost never admit to that. They seem to think they’d have all the comforts of modern civilization, they’d just not have to pay for it in taxes.

      1. Re: Tony,

        A unified theory of libertarianism would, I think, start with acknowledging that they’re [sic] almost universally white and male.

        Ok, so let’s begin deconstructing Tony’s argumentation tactics.

        First, Ad Hominem. Libertarianism is white and male. Which makes no logical (or grammatical) sense.

        Why is this important?

        It’s really not.

        I believe that if this country had been founded and dominated by black women instead, there would be a libertarian movement (leave me alone!) and it would be nearly universally black and female.

        Which means that your premise “Libertarianism is white and male” is in itself nonsense.

        People born into relative privilege obviously tend to have a bias against collective action

        Despite the fact that those who advocated for “collective action” were themselves white males of privilege: Engels, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, G.B. Shaw, H.G. Wells, Walter Lippman, Sinclair Lewis, et. al.

        So there you have it, folks: Ad Hominem, Projection, Misrepresentation of views and, to boot, a complete and pitiful lack of knowledge on the history of his own ideological bent.

        1. The only thing of substance in your post is acknowledging that white men have had the bulk of the power and influence. Did I say there were no white, male progressives? I happen to be one. Why don’t you try to make an actual argument, since you’re going to bother with the tags and long posts?

          1. Re: Tony,

            The only thing of substance in your post is acknowledging that white men have had the bulk of the power and influence.

            If you say so, Tony.

            Did I say there were no white, male progressives?

            No, you stupidly made a sweeping generalization: “People born into relative privilege obviously tend to have a bias against collective action”

            In fact, the contrary has been the true: Most of those advocating for collective action come from privileged upbringing – call it “guilt” if you will.

            1. If you’re a white male in this country you’re more likely to be a conservative or libertarian than any other demographic is. That’s just stats. That this is a result of an inevitable tendency of the most privileged demographic is a sociological hypothesis but it makes sense to me. Something’s gotta explain the sex and racial uniformity.

              1. Tony:

                If you’re a white male in this country you’re more likely to be a conservative or libertarian than any other demographic is. That’s just stats. That this is a result of an inevitable tendency of the most privileged demographic is a sociological hypothesis but it makes sense to me. Something’s gotta explain the sex and racial uniformity.

                You seem to be contradicting yourself again:
                Tony: Saying all of a particular race is anything other than a member of that race is the definition of racism.

                I guess that racism goes away when you’re explaining how white males are likely to act.

              2. Holy fuck. It’s like somebody handed you a glossary for contemporary womens studies in the form of magnetic poetry and you’re just trowing a handful of them at the fridge and typing whatever sticks.

      2. A unified theory of libertarianism would, I think, start with acknowledging that they’re almost universally white and male. Why is this important? I believe that if this country had been founded and dominated by black women instead, there would be a libertarian movement (leave me alone!) and it would be nearly universally black and female. People born into relative privilege obviously tend to have a bias against collective action to increase opportunities for others, since the status quo already provides most of the benefits to them.

        Or it could just be that historically, the Western liberal tradition (to which libertarianism is the heir) happened to originate in Western Europe. Hence, white people.

        It has nothing to do with dominance and established interests. It’s just culture and heritage.

        1. But modern white males are not the only heirs to that tradition. I think it goes without saying that advances in equal rights for minorities are part of the western liberal tradition. If there are virtually no minorities in your political movement, that, by itself, suggests that something is very wrong.

          1. Were I to create a political philosophy that simply said “everyone who is a member of a minority gets free shit” (which, by the way, is not necessarily that far from your own, although I accept that we can debate intentions), I would attract a large number of minorities and thus, by your definition above, implicitly not be “very wrong”. You are mistaken in this. Further, your argument is the definition of ad hominem and thus fallacious by its very nature.

      3. “This despite that fact that all liberals want to do is regulate pollution and socialize healthcare, while Republicans want to start holy wars and jail them for fellatio.”

        Kill yourself you fucking liar. You want to regulate everything under the sun, you want to punish productive segments of society, you want to further fragment society in order to grant rights and privileges by identity rather than personhood. You want to curtail pollution by refusing to be even remotely pragmatic about how the world IS, refusing the cleanest option we have in nuclear and insisting only upon technologies that will never have the capacity to sustain the energy needs of the population while also picking winners an losers by giving sweetheart contracts to those you firmly adhere their lips to your chosen brand of psychopaths.

        You are so fucking stuck on demographics rather than principles and ideology. Who the fuck cares what the make up of anything is? Making sound logical choices in regards to economic policy and politics should have nothing to do with your fantasyland idea of having a nation wide, diversity sponsored Sadies Hawkins dance you fucking amoeba.

  35. I think that one of the greatest issues progressives have with libertarianism is that its very existence contradicts their claim to the term liberalism. They’ve hidden behind this euphemism for some 75 years, and even though some are electing to revive the progressive banner that turned so many against the Wilson administration, there are still others who recognize that a parallel comparison of the two perspectives will show how illiberal, intolerant, and regressive progressivism is.

  36. “Never before have so many been so intimidated by so few, with so little political power.”

    Well, that’s like the first time Reason has ever published an article that even suggested that libertarians have little political power.

    There’s nothing surprising about the populist majority fearing a powerful minority manipulating the economy or the government. Lots of people still think a few Jews control the banks, Hollywood, and the government. They also believe wealthy Asians are buying up all the real estate in the U.S. Of course, who can forget the all the “1%” nonsense.

    Libertarians actually have a powerful ally (or a puppet) in the GOP who can carry out their will. Half the commentators here are more center right than libertarian. So they’re not as powerless as you think. Still no elected libertarian, though.

  37. Re: Tony,

    We regulate things that have proved themselves to need regulating.

    “How circular is my thinking? THIS circular!”

    But people will pollute, they will create systemic economic risk,

    A TORT can be arbitrated in court – no need for “regulation.”

    but in capitalism, ruthlessness tends to be an asset, does it not?

    No, it is not. In fact. you have no clue of what you’re talking about – you’re conflating capitalism with management! You’re simply showing your level of incompetence, Tony.

  38. Holy motherfuck I want the Raw Story crowd to die. You cannot present a single fucking fact to them without getting banned for hate truth.

  39. It’s not just the media though. Over at Neogaf, a popular video game forum, libertarians are the frequent punch bag. They’re having an orgasm over the recent bit coin troubles.

    Despite all the claims to the contrary, young people love socialism, both the idea and the practice, however inept it inevitably is.

  40. “Libertarian paranoia” actually refers to Democrats who are paranoid about Libertarians.

  41. Reminds me of how ~20 yrs. ago Jay Diamond was complaining about how extreme libertarians had taken over America and/or the world.

  42. “Or libertarianism itself will rise, and our loss of liberty will be greater still. That’s because libertarianism is a form of authoritarianism disguised in a narrow slice of civil liberties.”

    Holy shit, that salon article makes me physically hurt.

    1. But, but…. ROADZ!!!!

  43. Unfortunately, I clicked the link to one of the Salon articles. I have concluded that one of their hiring criteria for columnists is that you must be mildly retarded.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.